Here's the problem. There doesn't appear to be a government imposed top salary cap for any other NPO admin. If the government imposes one for preacher salaries isn't that regulation of religion (ie. you lose your tax exempt status if you pay your preacher more than x)? I think that we'd probably agree on ostentatious displays of wealth on the part of clergy, but just because the organization is non-profit doesn't mean the employees have to be.
Last edited by tempest-n-a-tcup on Wed Sep 22, 2010 8:12 pm, edited 3 times in total.
tempest-n-a-tcup wrote:Well, insults aside, what form should separation of church and state take, in your opinion?
I don't give a rat's ass about some quotes or commandments on old buildings (they're historical buildings, after all), nor do I care at all about things like Christmas manger scenes on government lawns. In my view, those things are meaningless and don't affect government at all.
Well, that's all I was really saying....our History is, our people are, our morals are
scotty, do you think today's us government should look to the Christian faith for guidance? if so then how do you reconcile that with the first amendment? i agree that our nation is based on Christian values, but that doesn't make it a "Christian nation"...
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
john9blue wrote:scotty, do you think today's us government should look to the Christian faith for guidance? if so then how do you reconcile that with the first amendment? i agree that our nation is based on Christian values, but that doesn't make it a "Christian nation"...
Probably not.
The way I see it, it's a very tolerant Christian Nation that allows free speech, especially for/against religion, to the Nth. I would meet you half way in saying we are Secular-Christian. I mean, this only answers the specific question, if asked..."What religion would you say America is"
Woodruff wrote:That's sort of my point...I don't believe some churches ARE "not for profit". I think that they're simply not looked at closely enough (that statement may be able to be made about some secular organizations as well, I suppose...though none come to mind). I'm speaking of the mega-churches that broadcast television shows, sell videotapes of their services. I've seen churches with their own recording studios and things like that...they go quite beyond "not for profit" in my opinion. I'm not referring to the typical church here at all.
ACORN. A non-profit group that actively supports and campaigns for Democratic candidates when supporting candidates is against the rules for non-profits.
Actually, in the end, most of Acorn was cleared of any wrongdoing. It was a couple of people within the organization that caused the issues. But, that part did not get much press coverage.
Woodruff wrote:That's sort of my point...I don't believe some churches ARE "not for profit". I think that they're simply not looked at closely enough (that statement may be able to be made about some secular organizations as well, I suppose...though none come to mind). I'm speaking of the mega-churches that broadcast television shows, sell videotapes of their services. I've seen churches with their own recording studios and things like that...they go quite beyond "not for profit" in my opinion. I'm not referring to the typical church here at all.
I think that's a fundamental misunderstanding though. A not for profit organization isn't one that doesn't operate on money; it's one that doesn't operate to turn a profit. Those mega churches are probably shelling out a lot of money for those operating expenses, salaries, and probably other outreach ministries.
No, it's not a misunderstanding...that's precisely what I am saying. I am absolutely in favor of ministers making a reasonable living...but when the salaries reach a certain figure, churches cease to be not-for-profit agencies in my opinion.
what "figure" would you suggest, woody?
I wouldn't suggest a specific figure, because I'm not at all in a position to have enough knowledge to make that determination or even to hazard an estimate. But there unquestionably should be a place for one.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
tempest-n-a-tcup wrote:
Here's the problem. There doesn't appear to be a government imposed top salary cap for any other NPO admin. If the government imposes one for preacher salaries isn't that regulation of religion (ie. you lose your tax exempt status if you pay your preacher more than x)? I think that we'd probably agree on ostentatious displays of wealth on the part of clergy, but just because the organization is non-profit doesn't mean the employees have to be.
True enough. I'm certainly not saying that salaries shouldn't be involved in non-profit organizations...I certainly don't expect people to work as a volunteer in every situation (certainly not ministers). But there has to be a point where it goes beyond the "spirit of the idea" of non-profitness. In fact, some are well beyond that idea, in my opinion. And I don't mean to pick on just churches...I agree that there probably are other non-profit organizations which don't fit the bill. I'm honestly not at all anti-church or anti-religion.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
tempest-n-a-tcup wrote:
Here's the problem. There doesn't appear to be a government imposed top salary cap for any other NPO admin. If the government imposes one for preacher salaries isn't that regulation of religion (ie. you lose your tax exempt status if you pay your preacher more than x)? I think that we'd probably agree on ostentatious displays of wealth on the part of clergy, but just because the organization is non-profit doesn't mean the employees have to be.
True enough. I'm certainly not saying that salaries shouldn't be involved in non-profit organizations...I certainly don't expect people to work as a volunteer in every situation (certainly not ministers). But there has to be a point where it goes beyond the "spirit of the idea" of non-profitness. In fact, some are well beyond that idea, in my opinion. And I don't mean to pick on just churches...I agree that there probably are other non-profit organizations which don't fit the bill. I'm honestly not at all anti-church or anti-religion.
It makes me wonder how much money of an NPO goes to salaries and other costs (for example, paying for services from the CEO's or a friend's company). At a certain point, I would guess that the that the larger an NPO gets, the more likely it becomes less effective.
Woodruff wrote:I'm certainly not saying that salaries shouldn't be involved in non-profit organizations...I certainly don't expect people to work as a volunteer in every situation (certainly not ministers). But there has to be a point where it goes beyond the "spirit of the idea" of non-profitness. In fact, some are well beyond that idea, in my opinion. And I don't mean to pick on just churches...I agree that there probably are other non-profit organizations which don't fit the bill. I'm honestly not at all anti-church or anti-religion.
No, I didn't see your stance as anti-religion; it's merely a secular stance. There are extremeists on both sides. Some would like for all US laws to be 100% supportive of their own particular sect of religion; others behave for all the world like the sight of a cross in public causes them physical pain. It seems like, from what we've discussed, that neither of us is that extreme in our views.
I certainly agree that the focus of a non-profit organization shouldn't be on building wealth. For churches its doubly important, after all there is a pretty famous precedent of Jesus taking exception to that very thing. I wouldn't have a problem with having churches apply for tax exempt status like any other NPO. It's when the government has an automatic answer ready that we might have troubles. If it's an automatic "yes" then are we leaning toward establishment if we deny the Pastafarians claim of tax exempt status for keg parties? If it's an automatic "no" then are we discriminating against actual non-profit organizations merely because they are churches?
Woodruff wrote:That's sort of my point...I don't believe some churches ARE "not for profit". I think that they're simply not looked at closely enough (that statement may be able to be made about some secular organizations as well, I suppose...though none come to mind). I'm speaking of the mega-churches that broadcast television shows, sell videotapes of their services. I've seen churches with their own recording studios and things like that...they go quite beyond "not for profit" in my opinion. I'm not referring to the typical church here at all.
I think that's a fundamental misunderstanding though. A not for profit organization isn't one that doesn't operate on money; it's one that doesn't operate to turn a profit. Those mega churches are probably shelling out a lot of money for those operating expenses, salaries, and probably other outreach ministries.
No, it's not a misunderstanding...that's precisely what I am saying. I am absolutely in favor of ministers making a reasonable living...but when the salaries reach a certain figure, churches cease to be not-for-profit agencies in my opinion.
You are not alone in this. I remember when the Crystal Cathedral in Ca temporarily lost its non profit status. This is also the main thrust of investigation of many cults. But, its hard to prove some of these things.
And sometimes, we have to ask if the cure is worse than the ill. If the government had more latitude to look into churches, then it could use that as a weapon against those who disagree.
Woodruff wrote:I'm certainly not saying that salaries shouldn't be involved in non-profit organizations...I certainly don't expect people to work as a volunteer in every situation (certainly not ministers). But there has to be a point where it goes beyond the "spirit of the idea" of non-profitness. In fact, some are well beyond that idea, in my opinion. And I don't mean to pick on just churches...I agree that there probably are other non-profit organizations which don't fit the bill. I'm honestly not at all anti-church or anti-religion.
No, I didn't see your stance as anti-religion; it's merely a secular stance. There are extremeists on both sides. Some would like for all US laws to be 100% supportive of their own particular sect of religion; others behave for all the world like the sight of a cross in public causes them physical pain. It seems like, from what we've discussed, that neither of us is that extreme in our views.
I usually grimace at the sight of three crosses on the side of road. If not a grimace, then perhaps a :/ face. Does that make me an extremist?
Woodruff wrote:That's sort of my point...I don't believe some churches ARE "not for profit". I think that they're simply not looked at closely enough (that statement may be able to be made about some secular organizations as well, I suppose...though none come to mind). I'm speaking of the mega-churches that broadcast television shows, sell videotapes of their services. I've seen churches with their own recording studios and things like that...they go quite beyond "not for profit" in my opinion. I'm not referring to the typical church here at all.
ACORN. A non-profit group that actively supports and campaigns for Democratic candidates when supporting candidates is against the rules for non-profits.
Actually, in the end, most of Acorn was cleared of any wrongdoing. It was a couple of people within the organization that caused the issues. But, that part did not get much press coverage.
tempest-n-a-tcup wrote:I wouldn't have a problem with having churches apply for tax exempt status like any other NPO. It's when the government has an automatic answer ready that we might have troubles. If it's an automatic "yes" then are we leaning toward establishment if we deny the Pastafarians claim of tax exempt status for keg parties? If it's an automatic "no" then are we discriminating against actual non-profit organizations merely because they are churches?
That's a good point. As PLAYER mentioned, it may be a case of the cure being worse than the disease, in that regard.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
BigBallinStalin wrote:I usually grimace at the sight of three crosses on the side of road. If not a grimace, then perhaps a :/ face. Does that make me an extremist?
quick clarification:
By "That extreme in our views" I meant neither of us push it to that extent. To call someone an extremist is a little beyond merely having a political or religious stance. A quick look at a dictionary might prove me wrong on that, but frankly the extra five mouse clicks to gain that information is just too mucheffort right now. Damn, what has the modern technological society reduced us to?
I see an extremist as a person who will go to any extreme in support of a particular cause and holds the most militant views about that cause. Anyway I did not mean to say anyone was an extremist only to say some attitudes are more moderate than others. While I'd personally reserve the reaction you describe for an instance in which someone was actually hanging on those crosses; I don't think it makes you an extremist. It's merely more intense a reaction than mild antipathy or apathy.
BigBallinStalin wrote:I usually grimace at the sight of three crosses on the side of road. If not a grimace, then perhaps a :/ face. Does that make me an extremist?
quick clarification:
By "That extreme in our views" I meant neither of us push it to that extent. To call someone an extremist is a little beyond merely having a political or religious stance. A quick look at a dictionary might prove me wrong on that, but frankly the extra five mouse clicks to gain that information is just too mucheffort right now. Damn, what has the modern technological society reduced us to?
I see an extremist as a person who will go to any extreme in support of a particular cause and holds the most militant views about that cause. Anyway I did not mean to say anyone was an extremist only to say some attitudes are more moderate than others. While I'd personally reserve the reaction you describe for an instance in which someone was actually hanging on those crosses; I don't think it makes you an extremist. It's merely more intense a reaction than mild antipathy or apathy.
Seems reasonable enough to me! Thanks for replying.
Stop, Guardian? This is what? Ten pages or so of a thread concerning United States roots and religion and politics? What's a conversation regarding that without mention of freemasonry? Has the Craft been mentioned even once in here before this?
tempest-n-a-tcup wrote:. Damn, what has the modern technological society reduced us to?
.
Apparently, the founder of Google himself is asking this. The answer, so far, is a generation of people who cannot read and think deeply about issues.
.. in other words, more of Sarah Pallin, far less of people who are able to see the many sides of issues, and, despite disagreeing, have discourse over those issues with others.
tempest-n-a-tcup wrote:. Damn, what has the modern technological society reduced us to?
.
Apparently, the founder of Google himself is asking this. The answer, so far, is a generation of people who cannot read and think deeply about issues.
.. in other words, more of Sarah Pallin, far less of people who are able to see the many sides of issues, and, despite disagreeing, have discourse over those issues with others.
So Palin can neither read nor think deeply? What a leap in logic there. I guess that deep thinking naturally leads to believing in liberal policies? It's impossible to think deeply and come to a conclusion that a conservative policy is the best course?
Lionz wrote:Stop, Guardian? This is what? Ten pages or so of a thread concerning United States roots and religion and politics? What's a conversation regarding that without mention of freemasonry? Has the Craft been mentioned even once in here before this?
It was not so much about America and it's roots, although those have been the defining examples.
tempest-n-a-tcup wrote:. Damn, what has the modern technological society reduced us to?
.
Apparently, the founder of Google himself is asking this. The answer, so far, is a generation of people who cannot read and think deeply about issues.
.. in other words, more of Sarah Pallin, far less of people who are able to see the many sides of issues, and, despite disagreeing, have discourse over those issues with others.
So Palin can neither read nor think deeply? What a leap in logic there. I guess that deep thinking naturally leads to believing in liberal policies? It's impossible to think deeply and come to a conclusion that a conservative policy is the best course?
Don't bother reasoning with her.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
tempest-n-a-tcup wrote:. Damn, what has the modern technological society reduced us to?
.
Apparently, the founder of Google himself is asking this. The answer, so far, is a generation of people who cannot read and think deeply about issues.
.. in other words, more of Sarah Pallin, far less of people who are able to see the many sides of issues, and, despite disagreeing, have discourse over those issues with others.
So Palin can neither read nor think deeply? What a leap in logic there. I guess that deep thinking naturally leads to believing in liberal policies? It's impossible to think deeply and come to a conclusion that a conservative policy is the best course?
I'm pretty sure it's impossible to both think critically and be Sarah Palin.
tempest-n-a-tcup wrote:. Damn, what has the modern technological society reduced us to?
.
Apparently, the founder of Google himself is asking this. The answer, so far, is a generation of people who cannot read and think deeply about issues.
.. in other words, more of Sarah Pallin, far less of people who are able to see the many sides of issues, and, despite disagreeing, have discourse over those issues with others.
So Palin can neither read nor think deeply? What a leap in logic there. I guess that deep thinking naturally leads to believing in liberal policies? It's impossible to think deeply and come to a conclusion that a conservative policy is the best course?
I'm pretty sure it's impossible to both think critically and be Sarah Palin.
Do you agree there are millions (billions?) of people who are unable of thinking critically? They need representin just as much as fat chicks do. Palin is the projector of the sheeple. She understands them. She is their shep....nahhh
tempest-n-a-tcup wrote:. Damn, what has the modern technological society reduced us to?
.
Apparently, the founder of Google himself is asking this. The answer, so far, is a generation of people who cannot read and think deeply about issues.
.. in other words, more of Sarah Pallin, far less of people who are able to see the many sides of issues, and, despite disagreeing, have discourse over those issues with others.
So Palin can neither read nor think deeply? What a leap in logic there. I guess that deep thinking naturally leads to believing in liberal policies? It's impossible to think deeply and come to a conclusion that a conservative policy is the best course?
I'm pretty sure it's impossible to both think critically and be Sarah Palin.
Do you agree there are millions (billions?) of people who are unable of thinking critically?
Millions? I'm not sure. Are there a shitload? Yes...without question.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
